Schlechte Argumente

Perusing one of the country's bigger newspapers, the Saudi Gazette, I encountered the following:

"Q- What is the wisdom behind the prohibition of consuming the flesh of swine?
A- Since the pig relishes filth and offal, its meat is repugnant to all pople of decent taste. Moreover, recent medical research has shown that eating swine-flesh is injurious to health in all climates, especially hot ones. Scientific research has also shown that pork carries a deadly parasite. Perhaps science may discover in the future things that will shed more light on the wisdom behind this prohibition. In addition to this, there are some scholars who say that eating pork frequently diminishes the man's sense of shame in relation to what is indecent behavior. And Allah knows best."

Stuff like this makes it difficult for the people that live here to make informed decisions about the substance of their beliefs. Certainly, Islam states that eating pork isn't such a hot idea, but why not cite the original reasons listed in the Qu'ran rather than this obviously bogus "research"? It's a rhetorical question, of course. The more ostensible evidence a position has, the more one will likely subscribe to its accuracy. Sort of like the way some hard line Christian bloggers like to provide obviously inaccurate or just plain fabricated statistics regarding the effects of homosexuality and its accompanying lifestyle to support their biblical position, which should be more than enough justification on its own, on the matter.